[Points of Light] Durations, Durations, Durations!

[C4]

The 4e golden standard for durations is 'until end of next turn' for at-will and encounter powers, and (save ends) for recharge and daily powers. (There are exceptions, but that's the gist of it.) For my PoL clone, I'm considering making '(save ends)' the golden standard for at-will and encounter durations too, and I'd like to know what 4e fans think. Pros I can think of...

1. Durations are even simpler than I've already made them.* No "Wait, does this Slowed condition end automatically or do I save against it?" moments.

2. Combat is a bit more swingy. You might save against that Slowed condition the first time, or you might be Slowed the entire encounter.

3. Extra saves are more valuable. Have lots of powers that grant extra saves? They'll rarely go to waste!

*I've already changed the standard duration from '...until the end of your next turn' to '...until the end of the target's next turn (save ends).' So if you Slow an enemy with Ray of Frost, the condition lasts only until the target ends its next turn. (Or until it successfully saves via some miscellaneous extra save.) This already cuts down on condition tracking (no more "Wait, who Slowed me? When does it end?"), and makes definite durations just as vulnerable to extra saves as (save ends) durations.

Now, the cons I can think of...

1. Combat is a bit more swingy. You might save against that Dominated condition the first time, or you might be Dominated for the entire encounter.

2. Extra saves are more valuable, possibly even an 'option tax.' I honestly don't know though if it would turn out this way though.

Stunlocking solos more easily is NOT a con, because it isn't possible in PoL. Elites and solos have a standardized trait that downgrades hindering conditions, so even if the PCs stun Orcus (save ends) and stick him with a -20 save penalty, he'll be Dazed at worst.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It makes conditions, and the characters who can impose them (like controllers) more potent.

It creates a heirarchy inside control effects: a condition you apply on an enemy becomes more valuable than something you grant yourself. Meaning, if I take a power that gives me an Aura 1, or creates a zone in a Burst 1 until the end of my next turn, that's less effective than getting something that applies a condition to an enemy.

Save penalties are The Bomb. Orb wizards will not let anyone do anything.

Wardens become super.

You might wind up rolling a LOT of saves.

Fairly minor stuff, overall, really. On average, you'll probably only see an extra round or two from the effects anyway (though it's possible to see outliers!). Just not always great stuff. Still, maybe worth it.

 

[MortalPlague]

One of the odd side effects of 4th Edition's save system is that after a certain point (usually the start of paragon), 'end of next turn' effects become more powerful than 'save ends' effects. There are many ways for PCs and monsters to generate saving throws, but there is no way for fixed-duration effects to end early.

For my epic game, I changed everything to 'save ends' and it worked fairly well. On top of that, I kept the 'end of next turn' condition for effects on PCs, with the 'save ends' addition (so they could attempt to save if they were granted one, but even if they failed their save, the effect still obeyed the rules of 'end of next turn'). It seemed to work well, but in the end my players preferred the original way. We switched back, keeping the 'save ends' thing for bosses only, and it didn't make much difference either way.

 

[C4]

It creates a heirarchy inside control effects: a condition you apply on an enemy becomes more valuable than something you grant yourself. Meaning, if I take a power that gives me an Aura 1, or creates a zone in a Burst 1 until the end of my next turn, that's less effective than getting something that applies a condition to an enemy.

Wow...never thought of it this way. Even if I don't end up changing the golden standard, I'll be thinking about this with respect to daily and recharge powers!

 

[C4]

For my epic game, I changed everything to 'save ends' and it worked fairly well. On top of that, I kept the 'end of next turn' condition for effects on PCs, with the 'save ends' addition (so they could attempt to save if they were granted one, but even if they failed their save, the effect still obeyed the rules of 'end of next turn').

Great minds think alike. In the case of my clone, I'm going the additional step of making [most] UENT conditions last only until the target's next turn. (If I don't change everything to save-endable, that is.)

We switched back, keeping the 'save ends' thing for bosses only, and it didn't make much difference either way.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear it doesn't throw a wrench into anything.

 

[Balesir]

Changing to "Save Ends" also makes initiative order more critical, and changes the value of statuses differently for parties of different sizes. One of the features of the "End of Source's next turn" durations is that the Source itself gets to benefit from whatever condition has been imposed. With "Save Ends" the target can save before the source of the condition gets to go again - and before any of the source's allies get to go, as well, if the initiative order isn't optimal for the party.

I can only speak for my own experience, but something I would expect to see if I changed to "everything Save Ends" is a lot more Delay, Ready and such like to take advantage of specific conditions before the target got a chance to save. With EONT this is unnecessary, because everyone will get a chance to capitalise on the condition anyway.

 

[Ferghis]

Save ends makes imposed effects less reliable.

For example If an enemy can't make OAs, I will probably only get that advantage until that enemy's turn. In other words, I can't move my PC, daze the enemy (or other effect), and then count on moving my PC past him safely on my next turn.

I do agree that "until the end of the PC's next turn" is more tracking than "until the target's next turn," since you can just scrap all the latter effects while the focus is on the targeted character, and the former durations need to be remembered by their authors, basically. However, given the amount of effect tracking necessary overall at late paragon and early epic, I'm not sure it makes a real difference.

 

[keterys]

In the heartbreaker I was poking at, I went a slightly different way. Default duration is end of your next turn for anything that affects you. You can save against those, as well, though. So far, pretty darn similar.

The trick that Balesir mentions is people who want combat advantage will be sad if they go to attack someone dazed and their init doesn't line up with that target's turn - so for a lot of powers you want to add a "we gain combat advantage on the target" line if that's a thing you care about.

I'll admit I'd be pretty okay with drastically changing Ready and Delay, as well.

As you can see, though, most respondents consider save ends _less powerful_ than end of your next turn, since it's less reliable. So if you're changing at-wills and encounters to save ends that's probably the right direction, so they're not more powerful than dailies.

You _could_ change dailies to last at least a round some way, though. Ex: save ends, cannot save until X or whatever.

 

[Ferghis]

As you can see, though, most respondents consider save ends _less powerful_ than end of your next turn, since it's less reliable. So if you're changing at-wills and encounters to save ends that's probably the right direction, so they're not more powerful than dailies.

You _could_ change dailies to last at least a round some way, though. Ex: save ends, cannot save until X or whatever.

I've thought of this, and personally come down on the side that it's more accounting than it's worth. But it is a good idea.

 

[Ferghis]

Some of this issue might be well solved by some kind of nifty condition tracking method. Currently, I track effects on the initiative board by adding either an (s) or the initiative count at the end of which they end (so beginning of a turn would have the initiative count immediately before it). I wonder if there is a better notation, such as perhaps noting the effect at the count at which it ends (but then it's harder to tell who is affected by what...), or something like that.